Hey folks, Does anyone know the story of what is going on with NJABL?
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20101225-r1052760-n/RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY/detail http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20101225-r1052760-n/RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAY/detail http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20101225-r1052760-n/RCVD_IN_NJABL_SPAM/detail After stopping early this year, I only began looking again at ruleqa results in recent weeks. It now appears that NJABL is almost useless or dead. 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY 0 0.208 0 2.224 # n=0 n=2 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAY 0 1.881 0 2.499 # n=0 n=2 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_IN_NJABL_SPAM 0 1.466 0 1.249 # n=0 n=2 These scores were assigned by the previous rescoring masscheck before the release of 3.3.0. It appears that NJABL is not worthwhile to remain in spamassassin any longer. We are only creating extra network queries and for no good reason. And NJABL just happens to be among the slowest of all my network queries in spamassassin. Perhaps it is time to remove NJABL? RFC Ignorant appears to be the next most useless network query. We may want to consider the investigating if it is worthwhile to retain it. If we eliminate network queries to useless or less effective blacklists, we could consider later adding more effective lists. Here are a few examples: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20101225-r1052760-n/T_RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL/detail Excellent performance, I use this on my server. http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20101225-r1052760-n/T_RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK/detail Much improved performance since last year. I am considering using it on my server. Only tagging for now. http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20101225-r1052760-n/T_RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL/detail Dangerously high false positive rate. It would need to become safer. I personally use this for tagging but not scoring. For now I'm proposing only disabling NJABL in sa-update, since it is currently useless and not worth the extra network query. Any thoughts? Warren Togami war...@togami.com
